.357 Performance out of a 2" barrel

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting thread. I have to agree first off that shot placement and being able to hit your target with multiple shot's is the most important aspect of all, but I am a little surprised that folks are ragging on the 357 mag a bit.
I think we all forget that whether your using a handgun or a rifle, the principle is the same. Velocity is extremely important, that's why a 75-90 Gr. .243 will quite easily take down a deer or black bear. Many of us have seen what a small, light bullet does to the insides of a large animal, it looks like a blender has gone through there, and it does that because of a VIOLENT bullet expansion and fragmentation.
I KNOW what a high velocity round does to the insides of a 200 pound deer (comparable to a man?) whether the bullet is perfectly mushroomed or fragmented, so I guess my point is that I simply use that as a reference. I want a hollow point that travels as fast as whatever gun I am using can shoot it. I use an sp101 2.25 inch, and I find that Corbon 110 Gr. bullets (125 is fine too) are extremely easy to shoot and control, but I do realize that the SP is a heavier carry gun. The corbon 110 Gr. chrono's out of my SP101 at an avg. of 1345fps.
The .357 was originally developed to compete with the 38 super as a round that could penetrate the early vests and cars, it wasn't developed to kill bears.
Sorry to go off on a tangent! Hit your target with something!
 
Last edited:
True about reason it was developed etc...

But bottom line is, not for most shooters who don't train with it quite a bit:what:
Body reflex is against you big time, and control goes out the window:eek:

Most who buy it to carry are not trying to shoot as explained in quote, for LEO:)
The .357 Magnum was collaboratively developed over a period in the early to mid-1930s by a group of individuals in a direct response to Colt's .38 Super Automatic. At the time, the .38 Super was the only American pistol cartridge capable of defeating automobile cover and the early ballistic vests that were just beginning to emerge in the post-World War I "Gangster Era."[6] Tests at the time revealed that those vests defeated any handgun cartridge traveling at less than about 1000 ft/s. Colt's .38 Super Automatic just edged over that velocity and was able to penetrate car doors and vests that bootleggers and gangsters were employing as cover.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.357_Magnum

Desert Eagle designed their pistol MK 1, around it and the 44 mag...

Very shootable in that pistol, problem is carrying it around:D

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMI_Desert_Eagle
 
I dont think ANYBODY:scrutiny: said it was developed FOR shooting bears. Someplace there are photos of Col Douglas Wesson, with a grizzly or polar bear and an African Lion, all shot with Nframes 357s. I have seen them, it was part of the advertising for the guns.

My mistake I said it. Damn.
 
Last edited:
The .357 was originally developed to compete with the 38 super as a round that could penetrate the early vests and cars, it wasn't developed to kill bears.

Although it has been repeated in number of places in recent years and particular since the advent of the Internet, I have to take the story that the .357 Magnum was originally invented primarily for law enforcement purposes with a grain of salt. Most of what was written and published at the time does not indicate that at all.

First, the round was first developed by Doug Wesson and Elmer Keith, and both Keith and Wesson were interested primarily in game hunting.

Second, early advertisements that I've seen were aimed primarily at outdoorsmen, and they touted the performance of the cartridge on various large game animals.

Third, until some time after WWII Smith and Wesson produced only very highly finished "Registered Magnum" revolvers in presentation cases; these were not the kind of thing that Highway Patrol organizations could afford.

The usefulness of the round for (some) law enforcement purposes was evident, however. Some Highway Patrol organizations had been using the .38-44 Heavy Duty, and as things developed, a pretty high proportion of the post WWII production of the .357 Magnum reportedly did go to law enforcement agencies, and a new model with a more utilitarian finish was later introduced.

Later on, when S&W was interested in increasing market share in the law enforcement area, they worked with Bill Jordan to come up with the Combat Magnum on the K frame. As Harley Quinn points out, even those are pretty difficult to control in rapid fire. Personally, I have no use for anything smaller in a .357 Magnum chambering.
 
Federal 140 gr. Barnes HP's. Perfect for short barreled 357's. The bullet is very long for a 140 due to 100% copper construction. You get a middleweight bullet that's tough yet expands without a ton of blast. I keep these in my 3" 686+ and they are some of the most accurate factory loads I've come across. The box claims 1400 from a 4".


Thank you, Seven! :)


.
 
Poorly worded on my part, I did not mean for my comment about why the 357 was developed to sound snippy. The othe reason I wanted to mention it was because IMHO I don't think folks back then were as obsessed as we are in today's world with things like hand cannons and whats better apples or oranges exc exc, if you were goin into the wild and might encounter a bear, you grabbed your Winchester Lever action, end of story, but yes it does make sense that Elmer Keith as an avid hunter would be interested in the 357's hunting ability.
Back to the recoil of a 357, it is a tough round to shoot quickly, and I will gladly admit that 38 specials are much more fun, but for those of you who are looking for the full power of a 357 without as much recoil, do try out the corbon 110 gr. noticeably less kick.
 
I believe it was for the bigger market of LEO, hunting back up was there also...45 acp was side arm of service for some time and made headway into the LEOs also...

Many LEO carried the 44 spl in revolver, guess we could argue this with opinion on and on...Bottom line the 2" in 357 Mag is not user friendly:D

The 357 Mag was touted to shoot through automobiles and the 44 Mag was an engine block killer:evil:

By the way the 44 spl in shorties has made a come back:D

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=596408
 
Last edited:
"First, the round was first developed by Doug Wesson and Elmer Keith, and both Keith and Wesson were interested primarily in game hunting."

but as I heard it told, Keith never thought all that much of it
44 was more his flavor
Bill Jordan probably is the one "name" who did the most for it's popularity..
and in a DA k-frame.. not a optimal hunting handgun, nor optimal for the 357 cartridge
(but just pert-near-perfect for versatility, balance, and ergonomics)

me, I am just glad somebody did, because 38/357 is my "thing" in centerfires, long or short :)
 
Speer Gold Dot 135gr. .38special +p Short Barrel Personal Protection - Velocity 860fps, Muzzle Energy 222 ft. lbs.
Speer Gold Dot 135gr. .357magnum Short Barrel Personal Protection - Velocity 990fps, Muzzle Energy 294 ft. lbs.

I can't feel the difference between these two out of my M&P340, and I have been experimenting a lot for the perfect round. I'll go with the ones with the better specs since they cost the same and have no difference in comfort. The test barrel length on all of those specs is two inches.

http://www.speer-ammo.com/ballistics/ammo.aspx
I've been a happy user of GD 38spl 135gr +P Short Barrel rounds for my 2" .357 ( a S&W 640-1) but I've been seriously considering their .357 short barrel rounds too. If the recoil and flash is not much more than the 38 +P then why not go with the better velocity.

I guess I will have to try them myself in a side-by-side test to make sure the .357 round isn't much worse.
 
I think if ya dig into it Elmer Keith, and Phil? Sharpe designed the 357 magnum cartridge. In like 35 or 36.
 
I've been a happy user of GD 38spl 135gr +P Short Barrel rounds for my 2" .357 ( a S&W 640-1) but I've been seriously considering their .357 short barrel rounds too. If the recoil and flash is not much more than the 38 +P then why not go with the better velocity.

I guess I will have to try them myself in a side-by-side test to make sure the .357 round isn't much worse.
They are just a little snappier, but I think you will find them VERY similar in flash, recoil, etc.....(and my 13oz. wheelgun really shows you the difference) However, the rounds are really hard to find in stock at the moment. I'm wishing I hadn't shot a box the week before last, if they are going to become so scarce or sought-after. But, you gotta practice. My first shot from the M&P was a full-tilt-boogie Hornady XTP .357. That was ridiculous. I'll just keep those on the shelf for now.
 
Has anyone tried the 38 special +p 110 gr. dpx that corbon has had out for a while? I don't mind the the full .357 load too much out of the SP, but I have heard good things about the .38 dpx they have. The barnes bullet is supposedly excellent, and the velocities from every source I have seen (published and youtube style) have been over 1000fps from short barrels. If anyone has experience firing please let me know.
 
They are just a little snappier, but I think you will find them VERY similar in flash, recoil, etc.....(and my 13oz. wheelgun really shows you the difference) However, the rounds are really hard to find in stock at the moment. I'm wishing I hadn't shot a box the week before last, if they are going to become so scarce or sought-after. But, you gotta practice. My first shot from the M&P was a full-tilt-boogie Hornady XTP .357. That was ridiculous. I'll just keep those on the shelf for now.
I just bought 3 boxes of it at Cheaper Than Dirt for $79 delivered ... expensive but if I like it I won't be firing off a bunch of it. As long as the flash and recoil aren't excessive and I can get off some quick shots in succession then I'll be happy. If not then I'm back to my trusty GD 38spl +P (again, which I'm very happy with but I'm always willing to try something with greater power, assuming I can handle such power). Thanks
 
catnphx, I kinda want to know what you experience. The flash seems to be the same, just a tad more 'bite', but not really more unmanageable. After one box, it became my carry round. :D
 
catnphx, I kinda want to know what you experience. The flash seems to be the same, just a tad more 'bite', but not really more unmanageable. After one box, it became my carry round. :D
Well, I would have been at the range already but it's so damn hot in Phoenix right now. It's 116 degrees on Saturday so I'm not sure I'll get a chance this weekend either. Soon though and I'll post my experience on this thread.
 
It is not practical. It is a wrist bender and hard to manage revolver. I would go with the .357 revolver though but shoot 38. Then you always have the options to run some super blasters.
 
They should be able to get to 1900 fps with a 5" barrel and keep it within CIP specs (considerably higher than SAAMI) but that's not 1000 ft·lbs of energy. It's still impressive.
 
I use .357SIG out of glock full size and get 1525fps with 124gr that is 640ft-lb. This x16 rounds that is devastating.
A 2" revolver is nice but impractical with the .357 magnum loads.
A .357 bullet is all about speed and with a short barrel it totally defeats the original purpose.
 
I use .357SIG out of glock full size and get 1525fps with 124gr that is 640ft-lb. This x16 rounds that is devastating.
A 2" revolver is nice but impractical with the .357 magnum loads.
A .357 bullet is all about speed and with a short barrel it totally defeats the original purpose.
I would normally agree (which is why I shoot the GD 135gr 38spl 135gr +P Short Barrel) but if GD has created a bullet that is not a full load .357 but gets greater velocity out of a 2" barrel than the 38spl +P I'm currently using ... well, it's worth a look.

From what I hear it's between a full load .357 and a 38spl +P and if the recoil isn't bad and I can fire off shots nearly as fast and accurate then it will be my new carry load in the 2" .357. Gotta keep an open mind ... bullet technology has vastly improved and I'm willing to try things out.
 
I agree. Give it a try and see how it feels. If it works and feels good then that is your round. Measure the speed in the chrono, sometimes you get way less than advertised and sometimes more.
In any case I would pay a bit more and go with the .357 revolver vs a .38 because then you have the option.
My point .357 mag, 357 SIG, 9mm Grech +P++ is all about speed and normally that means longer barrel / full size pistol.
but I have no experience with that ammo.

I do know .357 magnum in short pistol is hard on the wrist from experience. ... and I am a big guy.
 
I do know .357 magnum in short pistol is hard on the wrist from experience. ... and I am a big guy.

Absolutely ... shooting 158gr .357 High Velocity loads in my 2" barrel is downright painful and you become a one shot wonder because you can't get second or third shots off very quickly. This is exactly why I went with the 38spl +P loads but I'm hoping to get a little more punch out of the short barrel GD 135gr .357 load without the pain. Quick follow-ups and accuracy is what I'm looking for ... I've got that with the 38spl +P and would love to have that in these lower .357 loads.
 
It looks like you have a plan. It would be nice to know how it goes. I am kind of a glock guy but always loved a well made 357 revolver.
The venerable 357 mag. is one the most versatile rounds ever devised.
I wish a large ported glock on that round would be feasible. For me it would be like milk and chocolate.
I am happy with the 357SIG though. The secret service choice for a reason.
 
Speer

I went to the range (haven't had that kind of time recently) last weekend and tested out ten rounds of the 125gr. Speer Short Barrel .357 versus five rounds of the .38special Speer short barrel. I don't have a chrono, and the range was crazy crowded, but the .357 variant does kick quite a bit more while remaining just as controllable.

They say it has more velocity and energy, and I believe them now. (see, I get real scientific with my tests.....) My buddy that was with me was impressed with my group at 7 yards, semi-rapid fire. He did even better than me on his first try with the little cannon.

I'm not saying that 2"barreled .357's are perfect, there are only a few rounds that make them usable. Plus, there ain't nothing wrong with a .38+p! They all fit. Having the option is nice, and I find ONE ROUND to be usable in .357 for defense. 158 grain Hornady XTP will work great too, if you're Mr. Universe, which I am not. But, at least you have that option.

Oh, and I have been playing around with the idea of round 5 being a full-tilt-boogie .357 round. I don't know if that's a good idea or not....

cut
 
Point to ponder... I was shooting last w/e with a friend. His is a big guy, firearms savvy (as in former MP), was wearing hearing protection and was standing about 5' to my side (therefore his head was 2' behind the muzzle). The .38 158 gr plinking loads and the 110 gr .38 + P from a snubby were a matter of indifference to him. He thought quite differently (relocated a few feet and commented) when I pulled the trigger on the same snubby with a 125 gr loaded near (but not at) the high end of .357 recs. FWIW, all were made w/ Titegroup (which is fast burning).

So... if someone was a threat, wasn't hearing protected and was in front of the muzzle instead of beside me, at personal protection ranges, I would have to guess the difference in muzzle blast alone might change some important parts of the attitude equation... but I am well aware another persons attitude isn't a final determinant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top